Climatology
does not care! The connection between two naval wars and two climatic
changes within 25 years has not yet been investigated and explained.
Worse! Climate science does not know to this day that during the
global warming over the last 150 years thetwo worldwars haveinfluenced
two of the most significant climatic changes in this period. Even
for meteorologistsof a war
generation there were no obstacles to obtain knowledge
about this relationship.If
they had warned governments about the threat of climate change,
as their successors currently do with
the"greenhouseeffect",
naval activities in two World Wars may have been prevented,
or at least been limited. They didnot,
andthisjustifies
thequestion: Had
meteorology been too ignorant and incompetent in the firsthalf
of lastcentury?

Demonstrating
theeffect ofnaval warfareisnot difficult, if
one recognizes theseasas
the dominatingclimatefactor,
which is particularly obvious during winter seasons at higher
latitudes. Naval warfare contributed to a
strong Northern Hemispheric warmingphase(1919-1939),anda
global cooling phase(1940-1975),
atleastpartially.
Thestarting points arethethree extremelycoldwarwinters of 1939/40,
1940/41 and 1941/42in
northern Europe
. Had they happened without the war at sea? No!Toprove this, thestudyusedmorethan
four-fifths of the available book space as
evidence. The result is convincing. Thethree extremewintersare anthropogenic. The
medium is the sea. This justifies, assuming a
linkwith a global
cooling since 1940 for three decades.

Naval
warfare impact in WWII has been confirmed concerning air winter
temperatures in
Europe
. The available material is sufficient enough.Especiallyhelpfulare
14 temperature maps[1],
whicharereproducedin color, and are available digital[2].
All data show:Theworldwas warm, justEurope froze. Itis
shown thatacoldcorridor extendsfrom the
westcoast of
England, via North SeaandBaltic towardsthe
Ural.This applies to allthree
winters, but is especiallyelaboratedfor the first warwinter1939/40 (pp. 43-104).Thiswinterwasa
complete surpriseto all contemporaries, and
any deviationis based onobservations from periodswithout
human military interference with themarine
environment. Evidential circumstances can be also drawn from
the sea ice development in the NorthSea and Baltic, which received their firstfull-icing
since 1883.It is getting
sensational if one adds the airtemperaturesandsea ice cover of the
initial three war winters and is looking for comparable
periods.They do not seem to exist. Their
absenceconfirms this thesis.Thatthesethree extremewinters
were not repeated between 1943 and 1945 can be
explained by the fact that naval war went global after the attackon PearlHarbor in December1941, and that war activities at sea happened across
the
Atlantic
and the Western Pacific.

With
the relocationof naval warfarefrom
Europeintothe oceansof the NorthernHemisphere,
the consolidation ofglobal
coolingbegan, which statistically
commenced with theextremewinter1939/40.In
return, it is evidentin
temperature dataat many of the Atlanticlocations. In arecent
studyby Thompson(et al.,
2010)onlya
late phaseofglobal
coolingaround 1970, is attributed to lowerwatertemperatures in theNorthAtlantic. Theauthorshave spent no word on possible contributions during
5 years ofnaval warinthe
Atlantic
. They ignore, asother
climatescientists have, the
roleof the
Atlantic
forthechange to acold phasefrom 1940
onwards.Also in thenorthernPacific, there was an
abruptchange in surfacetemperatures,
afteramassing colossal war
machineries between
Hawaii
and the Asian continent from December 1941 to August 1945. A
change in the attributes of warm and cold water, known as "Pacific
Decadal Oscillation", began in 1943. Sincethis phenomenon has been in place only twotimes
in the lastcentury, a contribution
by thePacific War is also indicated.This is supportedbythe very coldwinter of
1944-45inJapan, as
well as by low temperatures in thefollowing
summermonths, when naval warfare came
closer and closer to Japan’s shores.

Meteorology
could have foreseen thesedevelopments, if they had ever undertaken attempts
to analyzethe weather andclimate
developmentduring the FirstWorldWar, and after the surprising extreme WWII winters.At the latest,when it
became known, that winter temperatures had rapidly increased at
Spitsbergen since 1918/19, time had come to
analyze the effect of naval warfareonweatherconditions in
Europe, onthe sea
areasin WesternEurope
and theirconnection to theNorwayandWestSpitsbergen
Currents. Butneither
for example an exceptionalsnowincidentinEnglandover threesuccessivewinters, nor the increasing sea ice cover in
the Baltic (see Ref: Drummond
and Oestman, A1, p. 2), or the cold
winter 1916/17 in Western Europe, neither the extreme sea ice in the
Nordic Sea during summer 1917, etc, were taken into
consideration.How is it possible that
massive naval wars have been ignored as contributors to the potential
of anthropogenic climate change? Thus, meteorologists have failedto gainthecompetence
whichwould have enabled them to warn about
possible consequences of a second world war. The
consequencesare inadequately
described, with the word, ‘tragic'.

The
tragedycontinues:Evenafter
90respectively 70years,
none of the issues raisedhave
been picked up by climatology and were never answered
or elaborated. Instead, it is
suggested to the public and politics thatthe climate system andanthropogenicinfluences, withreference
tothe greenhouseeffect,
is well understood.

This
is objectively irresponsible, as long as weather and climate changes,
which could be observed during both world wars, are neither discussed,
nor explained. The role of naval war needs to be understood as it
underlines the role of the seas. The findings significantly highlight
the dominance of the oceans in weather and climate systems. One may
have to speak about a lack of professionalism, if it is recalled what
the famous oceanographer H.U. Sverdrup (1942) had already told
meteorologists 70 years ago[3]:

It
might appear, therefore, as if the oceanic
circulation and the distribution of temperature
and salinity in the ocean are caused by the
atmospheric processes, but such a conclusion would be
erroneous, because the energy that maintains the
atmospheric circulation is to be greatly supplied
by the oceans.